"Issues in civil proceedings are to be decided on preponderance of evidence. In case of word against word party on whom onus lay must fail"
Allah din vs habib, cited as PLD 1982 SC 465
- "Limitation does not run where impugned order is passed without hearing and notice to a party whose presence was otherwise necessary";
Mst Rehmat Bibi & others vs Pannu Khan and NLR 1982 SCJ 166.
- "Judgment passed without hearing and without informing the party of the existence of the ex-parte order is no judgment question of limitation does not arise against void order";
Sayeed Nazir hasan vs settlement commissioner
PLD 1974 Lah 434.
See also case titled Muhammad Ashraf etc. vs. Muhammad Usman etc.
(1973 SCMR 403;).
Also see generally PLD 1971SC 61.
- "The requirements that orders of court ought to be publicly made and announced is not only a matter of accepted judicial procedure ,but invariably a requirement of law regulating the functioning of Civil and Criminal Courts".
Lachmandas vs Central Govt cited as PLDI973 SC 379
- "Order appealed against found to be a nullity - Appellate Authority can entertain and decide on merit even a time barred appeal against a void order.";
Sayed Muhamad Alam vs Syed Mandi Hassan
(PLD 1970 Lah 6).
See generally PLD 1971 Lah. 746 and PLD 1969 Lah.1039.
- "Mere observation in a case under Order 37 C.P.C based on Pronote while considering the grounds of leave on P.L.A that the defendant has not given any justification for grant of leave not considering the affidavit attached thereto , and asking the plaintiff to prove his case , the conclusion drawn by the trial judge was wrong. Judgment feel short of requirements of order XX C.P.C";
Muhammad Yousaf vs Allah Yar
PLD 1987 LAH 101
- "Judgment would mean judicious determination of dispute between parties specifying grounds and substantial reasoning for arriving the particular decision. Judgment, held ought to be self contained, un ambiguous, conveniently intelligible, lucid and capable of only one interpretation without leading for guess or probabilities with regard to matters sought to be determined. Proper or valid judgment would be devoid of apparent vagueness, ambiguity or possibility of different or double interpretation. Bar of limitation for filing appeal , against decrees passed in utter disregard of legal requirement viz recording of reasons for granting decree would not be applicable";
Mistry Muhammad Hassan vs Haji Said Muhammad
1986 CLC 1241 (Quetta).
- "The signing of judgment as envisaged u/s 369 of Cr.P.C is signing in open court at the time of pronouncement of the judgment and not signing at the home .in the case, therefore, the simple writing and signing of the judgment was wholly ineffective and did not operate as a bar to further proceedings";
Amin Sharif vs Syeeda Khatoon
PLD 1962 SC 97.
- "Order void ab initio- A nullity- such order does not require to be set aside in appeal or any other proceedings";
Khuda Bakh vs Khusi Muhammad etc.
PLD 1976 SC 2008.
- "Order of a tribunal found to be without jurisdiction. All successive orders based upon it are illegal and liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction".
- "Judgment did not conform to the provisions of law as it was to be based on evidence in the case and not other material or factor was to be taken into consideration. Furthermore the relief had to follow findings on the issue and should have been consistent with those findings. Such a disposition of the matter could not qualify to be a judgment in law and was liable to be set aside";
Meaple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd vs Waryam etc
PLD 2006 LAH 506. Also see 2006 YLR 108.
- "Lack of issue -wise findings not fatal"
Umer Din vs. Ghazanfar AM
1991 SCMR 1816;
Also see generally 2006 SCMR 185; 2006 YLR 711; PLD 2007 PESH 14
- "However, issue-wise judgment from the original trial court";
Habibullah vs Azmatullah
PLD 2007 SC 271. See also 2007 MLD 476.
- "Trail court while recording its findings on merit of the case did not further discuss the evidence. It is not a reasoned judgment under Order XX";
Amir Tufail vs Muhammad Sadiq etc
2006 CLD 91;
Mst Yasmin Akhter vs Abdul Mateen Zahid
2007 CLC 972. (Shariat Court AJ & K).
- "Issue wise discussion not mandatory for Appellate Court";
Niamat Khan and others vs Hamzullah Khan etc.
2006 CLC 125;
See also 2006 CLC 662
- "Even ex-party order/judgment is required to be a speaking order/judgment even if passed under Order IX Rule 6. If initial order was void, no limitation";
Wapda vs Mir khan Muhammad Khan Jamali
2006 CLC 92(Quetta).
- "Mere reproduction of evidence by the Appellate Court did not mean that the evidence of the parties has been discussed or referred to, judgment revealed cursory and casual approach of Appellate Court to the case. Judgment suffered from non-reading of evidence on record .Trial court had acted illegally etc. Judgment of the appellant was set aside and case was remanded to the Appellate Court";
Sayed Zulfiqar Hussain Naqvi vs Sayed Gulzar Hussain Shah
2005 YLR 2817.
- "In a pre- emption suit, parties themselves modified original decree. Supreme court accepted, agreed and modified the original decree in terms thereof.
Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Taj and others
2005 SCMR 1668.
- "Decree in suit for rendition of accounts - levy of stamp duty on such decree, scope, phrase any property" as used in section 2(15) of stamp act 1989 would include both types of moveable or immovable properties".
M/S Faisal Traders Vs. M/S Syngenta Pakistan Ltd
2005 YLR 2503
- "Where law provides for writing, announcing and signing a judgment that must be done in a way to get validity to the judgment"
Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan & others vs Noor Muhammad
2007 SCMR 307.
- "Judgment written and signed after its pronouncement would be a mare irregularity"
Mst. Zohra Begam and others vs Muhammad Ismail
2008 SCMR 143,
Also see 2007 CLC 760.
- "Conclusion of Distt. Judge that trial Judge had recorded his judgment with pencil in his own hands comprising 33 pages and it was impossible that such a judgment could be written in 45 minutes and that too while Trial Judge (Senior Civil Judge) was in bathroom, upheld by the Supreme Court as unexceptionable";
MST Zohra Begam and others vs Muhammad Ismail
2008 SCMR 143.
- "Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, delayed pronouncement of judgment after 10 months of hearing arguments, proceedings involved civil rights, hence, considered as civil proceedings, Regardless of whether jurisdiction exercised by High Court was original appellate or constitutional, once proceeding before High Court were of civil nature ,the C.P.C would apply unless specifically excepted. Unreasonable delay of 10 months had caused prejudice. Bulk of documentary evidence going to the root of the case did not find mention in the High Court Judgment. Supreme Court converted Leave petition into appeal and remanded the case";
Muhammad Awais and others vs Fedration
2007 SCMR 1587.
- "Specific performance, Rescission of contract. Decree of the Court for specific performance of agreement is in the nature of preliminary decree and extension of the time for deposit of sale consideration - conveyance deed has to take place- during this period decree-contra continues to subsist-extension of the time is not an alteration or modification of a decree";
Tasneem Ismail and others vs M/S Wafi Associates and others
2007 SCMR 1464
- "Contents of judgment and decree excepted from judicial officer that he would pass the speaking order to enable everyone to have an idea or the view which found favour with the presiding officer or such court or Tribunal- Judgment should contain concise statement of the case, points for determination which had been raised, the decision thereon reason for such decision judicial order must be speaking and meaningful by it self exhibiting that the court had applied its mind to the resolution of all the material issues".
Mollah Ejahar AM vs Govt Of East Pakistan and others
PLD 1970 SC 173,
Muhammad Irshad and Others
Versus
MST Hanifa Begum alias Bagi and others
PLD 2007 SC (AJ & K) 20.
- TIME FOR PRONOUCEMENT OF JUDGMENT "Order XX, R.1 ,High Court Rules & Orders (Lahore) Vol .V Chap IV R. 5 -not only O. XX R.1 C.P.C or Rules 5 of the Chapter IV of the High Court Rules and Orders Vol V but also the fiscal statutes had no prescribed time for pronouncement of the judgment, nevertheless , it was desirable to deliver the judgment without inordinate delay so that the justice must not only be done by manifestly appear to be done";
M.A.N0.338/L.B of 2003, 2005 PTD (TRIB) 318.
- "Ground in the Appellate Court, inter alia, that Trail Court was not legally competent to decide four issues collectively being against O XX R.5 C.P.C -held - no doubt Trial Court should have given finding on each issue separately, but where certain issue were linked with each other and where considered together, such consideration was not violative of O XX R. 5 C.P.C".
MUHAMMAD AFZAL & OTHERS VS WALI MUHAMMAD
2004 CLC 658 AND
KARIM BUX & 2-OTHERS VS MANZOOR AHMAD ETC.
PLD 2005 (Kar) 50;
Also see generally 2004 CLC 1438; 2004 CLC 370.
- "Service Tribunal mentioned in detail respective pleadings but had not resolved those points. No reason given in support of conclusion nor evaluation of documentary evidence made/discussed .It is no judgment in the eye of law";
2004 PLC (C.S)843
- "Petitioner's grievance was that the notified officer passed the order against them after the notified officer had been transferred. Notified officer was transferred on 12-1-1998 with immediate effect but he still heard the case on 13-1-1998and decided it on 16-1-1998. Contention that the order of transfer would have taken effect after the same has been published in the official Gazette Held- Notified officer should not have adjudicated the case because his transfer was with immediate effect on 12-1-1998. It's legal efficacy was not dependent upon its publication in the Gazette as it took effect immediately";
Barkat ali vs Addl Commissioner
2004 MLD 1633
- "Successor judge can pronounce judgment written by his predecessor-Transferred judge who heard the case could complete the judgment which could have been announced by his successor. If case had been heard by Court or presiding officer, such officer could pronounce judgment/order even if he had been transferred or promoted. Where a presiding officer had concluded the hearing of the matter before his transfer, such officer could decide the matter before relinquishing the charge. The ratio is that if the outgoing judge has already heard the case, he could decide the same";
Barkat Ali Vs. Addl. Commissioner
2004 MLD 1633
- "Findings of the Rent Controller on the issue of default were given in a single sentence and did not discuss the accumulative effect of statement of the tenant where he had explained reasons for non-tendering of the rent. Judgment was violative of O .XX irrespective that C.P.C did not apply in the rent matters".
Mujib-ur- Rehman vs Zafar ali Khan
2004 CLC 189 (B)
- "Trail Court failed to give issue wise findings- Appellate Court while maintaining the judgment did not form points for determination ignoring mandatory requirements of O. XLI R.31 C.P.C judgments & decrees of both the lower courts set aside"
MST Feroza vs Anjumman-e- Ittehad-e- Baluchan & others
2004 YLR 1535 Kar.
- "Under Land Acquisition Act Section 23, failure of referee Court to give findings on issue of the time of possession from when the interest will be payable to them- Judgment suffered from non -decision on such issue- Case Remanded".
M. Salim & 7-others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector
2004 YLR 807 Lah.
- COSTITUTIONAL PETITION
"Member Board of Revenue, reserved the judgment/order and passed order after about ten months of hearing the case. Statutory obligation under Order XX Rule 1 C.P.C was to decide matters within thirty days of hearing the case. The order was not sustainable and was declared to be of no effect";
Muhammad Latif Vs. Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner & others
2003 CLC 1064 Lah.
- "Order XX , High Courts Rules & Orders Vol. 1 , Chapter 1, R.2 Correction in judgment except u/s 152 C.P.C or a review after announcement , when the court becomes " functus officio". Therefore "correction" was not sustainable in the eye of law";
MIS Norrani Traders vs. Civil Aviation
2001 YLR 2277 Kar.
Pakistan Industrial Promoters vs Nawazish Ali Jafari
2003 YLR 1277
Govt NWFP vs. Arsala Khan and others
2003 CLC 1189 & PLD 2001 Pesh.47
- "Judgment to be signed. Sending of the files to the office of the Court was a ministerial act and could not be determinative of the date of the signing the judgment".
Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs. Election Commission of Pakistan
PLD 2003 Lah 646.
- "Necessary ingredients of the judgment explained";
Akhter Saeed vs. Azad Kasmir Government
PLD 2003 SC (AJ& K) 1; Also see 2002 CLC 4 Pesh.
- "Disposal of interconnected and interlinked issues would not cause any prejudice to a party";
Umer Din vs. Ghazanfer ALI & OTHERS
1991 SCMR 1816,
Aziz ullah Khan etc. vs. Gul Muhammad Khan
2000 SCMR 1647 and
Abdul Sattar vs. Bashir Ahmad etc.
2004 CLC 370 Kar.
- "Trail court had dealt with the matter in a proper way and the omission to discuss the issue wise ratio had not resulted in injustice. High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent judgments below".
Hazrat Ali Khan vs. Mir Wali Khan
2003 YLR 801 Pesh.
- "No need to specifically give the issue no or reference as long as the question in question i.e. the "limitation" was consciously dealt with".
Mst. Satto alias Sattan vs. Gaman
2003 CLC 456 Lah.
- "Decree must agree with judgment";
Dilmeer vs. Rajab Ali & Others
2003 MLD 484 Lah.
Order XX Rule 1 (2) - CONTITUTION ART 254
- "Provisions of O.XX R. 1 (2) are directory in nature and not mandatory and do not provide for consequence in case it is not strictly adhered. High Court announced judgment after more than five months in violation of O.XX R .1 (2) C.P.C was in consequential having no material bearing on merits".
Jumma Khan & others vs. MST Bibi Zenaba & others
PLD 2002 SC 823.
Also see 2002 CLC 1704.
- "Where no evidence was produced on the issue framed, the Courts below were left with no other option but to decide the same against the side on which onus of proof lay".
Aziz ullah khan vs. Gul Muhammad khan
2000 SCMR 1647.
- "Judgment, decree or order- Distinction".
Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan vs. Govt of AJ & K
PLD 1990 SC (AJ & K) 23.